Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 04 August 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 have been canceled.
Claims 11-18 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-18 have been rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202211516102X on 20 November 2022 with an interim copy filed 04 August 2026. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211516102X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived.
If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (m)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-18 are drawn to a method or apparatus, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for calculating the terminal voltage of the lithium battery based on the electrochemical model.
This independent claim recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
S1: constructing the electrochemical model of the lithium battery as a pseudo-two-dimensional model for lithium batteries, and dividing the lithium-ion battery into three domains comprising an anode domain, a separator domain, and a cathode domain, wherein the three domains respectively represent an anode, a separator, and a cathode of the lithium battery
S3: obtaining solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and the cathode, based on discrete data of the liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode of the lithium battery…; and
S4: obtaining the terminal voltage of the lithium battery based on the solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and cathode....
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
This independent claim recites the following steps best characterized as mathematical concepts under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts in general:
S2: numerically simulating the electrochemical model in the three domains respectively using Chebyshev spectral method for numerical solution of partial differential equations during a simulation process, wherein the Chebyshev spectral method includes a plurality of Chebyshev points corresponding to data in the three domains, obtaining approximate values of physical quantities at the plurality of Chebyshev points, and solving a liquid-phase potential control equation in the electrochemical model by applying the Chebyshev spectral method to obtain approximate values of a liquid-phase potential at the plurality of Chebyshev points, wherein the physical quantities in the anode domain and the cathode domain comprise liquid-phase exchange current density, liquid-phase lithium-ion concentration, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage, and the physical quantities in the separator domain comprise liquid-phase exchange current density and liquid- phase lithium-ion concentration, and obtaining discrete distribution data of a liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode respectively
S3:… battery, wherein, for each of the plurality of Chebyshev points in the cathode domain or the anode domain, an approximate value of a respective solid-phase potential is obtained using the formula
ϕ
s
=
η
+
ϕ
e
+
o
c
v
,wherein
ϕ
s
is the solid-phase potential,
ϕ
e
is the liquid-phase potential,
η
is the overpotential, and
o
c
v
is the open-circuit voltage at the terminal of the lithium battery
S4:… the terminal voltage
V
t
e
r
of the lithium battery is calculated based on the first solid-phase potential and the second solid-phase potential.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as representing mathematical relationships - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of determining the liquid-phase potential control equation.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of mapping the Chebyshev points and the liquid-phase potential control equation to a Chebyshev computational interval, and obtaining approximations of the liquid potential at the Chebyshev points corresponding to a said domain.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept of mapping the spatial coordinate points to the Chebyshev computational interval.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, limitations further limiting the mathematical concept determining the jth unit coefficients by solving a system of equations for Ajk.
Dependent claim 11 recites, in part, generating a simulation computing request based on the lithium battery parameters and executing the method for calculating the terminal voltage.
Dependent claim 13 recites, in part, sorting range for the Chebyshev points.
Dependent claim 14 recites, in part, the corresponding grid numbers for the anode domain, cathode domain, and separator domain.
Dependent claim 15 recites, in part, an initialization module for determining the coefficients for the Chebyshev computational units.
Dependent claim 16 recites, in part, the coefficient matrix for each of the three domains.
Dependent claim 17 recites, in part, calculations for the liquid-phase potentials at the cathode, separator, and anode domains.
Dependent claim 18 recites, in part, the association between the solid-phase potentials and the Chebyshev point in the anode and cathode domains.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Independent claim 9 recites an apparatus for calculating a terminal voltage of a lithium battery based on the electrochemical model.
This independent claim recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
construct the electrochemical model of the lithium battery as a pseudo-two- dimensional model for lithium batteries and divide the lithium-ion battery into an anode domain, a separator domain, and a cathode domain;
numerically simulate the electrochemical model in the three domains respectively using a Chebyshev spectral method;
obtain solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and the cathode based on discrete data of liquid-phase potential, overpotential, and open-circuit voltage of the anode and the cathode; and
obtain the terminal voltage of the lithium battery based on the solid-phase potential distribution data of the anode and cathode
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method. Claim 9 recites an apparatus with a memory and a processor. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 11 recites a terminal and a server. Claim 12 recites the server. The specification describes the computer and corresponding hardware as a general purpose computer and does not provide any hardware configurations to support the position that the computer has a non-generic architecture (see the instant specification in ¶ 0071-79 stating “preferably, the processor 72 can be a general processor”). Therefore the use of the computer hardware to perform the method of claim 1 serves as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Claim 1 recites wherein a first solid-phase potential
ϕ
s
+
is obtained at an interface between the anode and a current collector of the lithium battery, and a second solid-phase potential
ϕ
s
-
is obtained at an interface between the cathode and the current collector. The specification does not provide any specific hardware configurations for the interfaces (see the instant specification in ¶ 0074). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites, in part, receiving, by a terminal, lithium battery parameters comprising a size of the lithium battery, solid-phase material parameters, and liquid-phase material parameters. Claim 11 recites, in part, sending the simulation computing request to a server. Claim 12 recites, in part, sending, by the server, the terminal voltage of the lithium battery to the terminal. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites, in part, displaying, by the terminal, the terminal voltage. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method. Claim 9 recites an apparatus with a memory and a processor. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 11 recites a terminal and a server. Claim 12 recites the server. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Independent claim 1 recites wherein a first solid-phase potential
ϕ
s
+
is obtained at an interface between the anode and a current collector of the lithium battery, and a second solid-phase potential
ϕ
s
-
is obtained at an interface between the cathode and the current collector. Obtaining solid-phase potentials from interfaces between the anode or cathode and a current collector is well-understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Colclasure and Kee, Thermodynamically consistent modeling of elementary electrochemistry in lithium-ion batteries, 55 Electrochimica Acta 8960–8973 (2010) teaching on the generic structure of a Li-ion battery with current collection interface between the anode and cathode for collecting electric potentials in the § 1. Introduction on p. 8960-8961, Fig. 1 on p. 8961, and 2.5. Boundary conditions on p. 8962 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore, obtaining the solid-phase potentials from interfaces between the anode and cathode and a current collector is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites, in part, receiving, by a terminal, lithium battery parameters comprising a size of the lithium battery, solid-phase material parameters, and liquid-phase material parameters. Claim 11 recites, in part, sending the simulation computing request to a server. Claim 12 recites, in part, sending, by the server, the terminal voltage of the lithium battery to the terminal. The courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 12 recites, in part, displaying, by the terminal, the terminal voltage. The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are addressed in the order in which the claims are to analyzed under MPEP § 2016(III) Summary of Analysis and Flowchart and not necessarily in the order presented by Applicant.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Applicant asserts that the claim as a whole is not directed towards a mathematical concept per se, but rather a specific technical process for numerical simulation of a lithium battery electrochemical model and calculation of a terminal voltage. Examiner notes that the application of the mathematically concept does not prevent the claim from reciting a mathematical concept generally under Step 2A Prong 1. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Applicant asserts that the instant claims do not recite a mental process as the claims involve operations such as electrochemical physical quantities, partial differential-equation simulation, domain-specific Chebyshev points, liquid-phase and solid-phase potential distribution data, and physical interfaces of a lithium battery and such operations cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind as a practical matter. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2, the limitations of the claim are analyzed under two classifications (1) the abstract idea of the claim and (2) additional elements of the claim. Examiner has not identified all of the limitations listed by Applicant as mental processes. Some of the processes are identified as mathematical concepts under Step 2A Prong 1. Additionally, the physical interfaces are identified and considered under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B as additional elements. Furthermore, the use of electronic means for performing the abstract idea is not enough to overcome Step 2A Prong 1 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FED. REG. 4 (January 7, 2019) at p. 8 footnote 54 further citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316-18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where the electronic implementation of human activity was not adequate to overcome Step 2A Prong 1).
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
Applicant asserts that the claims amount to a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 via an improvement to electrochemical modeling technology. Examiner disagrees. An improvement to the abstract idea of electrochemical-model simulation methods by improving model accuracy does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Here, the improvement is to the mathematical electrochemical model itself. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Applicant asserts that the claims amount to an improvement to technology via an improvement to numerical simulation techniques. Examiner disagrees. As stated above, an improvement to the abstract idea of electrochemical model simulation by improving model accuracy does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field Furthermore, efficiency is not enough to amount to a practical application via an improvement to computer or technology under Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (also see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) stating “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”), and, thus, the combination of the generic computer components do not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces; note this is applied to Step 2B as well as Step 2A Prong 2).
Applicant then asserts that a general off the shelf computer is transformed into a specific machine to implement a technology process and therefore the claims do not recite a generic computer. Examiner disagrees. The claims and specification provide no evidence that the invention is not a utilization of the generic computer with corresponding communication processes for gathering data, analyzing the data, and distributing the results – see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, v.”.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
Applicant asserts that the ordered combination of limitations amount to a “not conventional generic computer implementation”. The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bhikkaji et al., Reduced order models for diffusion systems using singular perturbations, 33(8) Energy and Buildings 769-781 (Oct 2001) teaching on a Chebyshev Collocation approximation for heat diffusion in the § 6. Discussion on p 776-779
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights